Year: 2014

North York Moors really good for waders but really bad for raptors

North York Moors NPTwo weeks ago the Yorkshire Post published an article about how well waders were doing on the North York Moors, according to the results of a survey conducted by the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA) and Natural England.

According to the North York Moors biodiversity action plan, the North York Moors National Park ‘contains the largest patch of continuous heather moorland in England and holds over 10% of the country’s resource. Most of the moors are privately owned and are managed for sheep grazing and grouse shooting’ [with the Hawk & Owl Trust’s Fylingdales Moor a notable and welcome exception].

The survey suggested that golden plover had reached an 18-year high on these moors, there had been no decline in breeding lapwing and populations of curlew were ‘holding steady, bucking a national declining trend’.

The article included a quote from David Renwick, the Director of Conservation at the NYMNPA:

“Thanks must go to landowners and gamekeepers who have not only supported our survey work but are keen to create favourable habitats and conditions for these birds“.

That’s an interesting statement from the National Park’s Director of Conservation, who apparently “is an ecologist by training“. Presumably, his ecology training would have led him to question why these waders are doing so well on these moors. Could it be, perhaps, that all the waders’ natural predators have been eradicated from these moors? Is that what he means when he congratulates landowners and gamekeepers for creating ‘favourable habitats and conditions’?

North Yorkshire has the well-deserved status of being the worst place for reported raptor persecution incidents in the whole of the UK. We’ve blogged about it previously (here and here). It has held this status for six of the last seven years (being pipped to the post in 2011 when it came a close second to Lancashire). Here are the data, sourced from the RSPB’s excellent annual Birdcrime reports:

2013: 23 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #1 worst in UK

2012: 34 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #1 worst in UK

2011: 33 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #2 (Lanacashire #1 with 36 incidents)

2010: 54 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #1 worst in UK

2009: 27 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: joint #1 worst in UK (with Cumbria)

2008: 24 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #1 worst in UK

2007: 78 known incidents of raptor persecution. Status: #1 worst in UK

We looked in the biodiversity action plan and on the NYMNPA website for any information about how they specifically planned to address these appalling statistics but couldn’t find very much. We did, though, find an invitation to an open day to ‘meet the countryside protectors’. Marvellous.

Raptor persecution condemned at SNP annual conference

Wheelhouse SNP14 (2)The Scottish National Party held its annual conference at the weekend. In response to the rising number of raptor poisoning and shooting incidents, we were delighted to see the issue of raptor persecution featuring prominently, once again, on the political agenda.

A resolution to tackle raptor persecution was put forward by Jennifer Dunn, seconded by the Environment Minister and strongly supported by Dennis Robertson MSP (who also called for the Government to increase the SSPCA’s investigatory powers).

Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse had a message for the raptor killers:

“Listen to the will of the Scottish people and understand that we will not tolerate these crimes any longer. The sand is running out of the hour glass and they [the raptor-killing criminals] really do have to start listening to the messages we’re giving them very strongly. Enough is enough. Obey the law, respect the will of the Scottish people and protect our wildlife“.

He also said: “We must recognise that not all estates are engaged in this activity, there are, unfortunately, several rotten apples in the barrel who are spoiling this for everyone. I hope people do listen to the messages today, we really don’t want to have to go down the route of licensing game-shooting but we have indicated, in Parliament and elsewhere, that if we are forced to do so, that is the direction we will travel. I hope offenders heed the warning, stop spoiling what is a strong industry in the rural economy for Scotland, and make no mistake, as I say, we will not hesitate to act if they do not listen to what we are saying“.

The resolution was passed unanimously.

Now we just need to keep holding the Minister’s feet to the fire to ensure that these threats amount to more than just rhetoric.

Environment Minister gives evidence on wildlife crime to RACCE Committee

Wheelhouse RACCEA couple of weeks ago, Police Scotland and COPFS gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee about wildlife crime (see here).

Last week it was the turn of Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The archived video can be watched here and the full transcript can be read here.

So what did we learn? Quite a lot.

1. The Minister is “confident” that surveillance cameras can be used in wildlife crime investigations and the Lord Advocate has made it clear that the option is available to Police Scotland. (Interestingly, Police Scotland were not quite so keen when they were asked about it two weeks ago).

2. The Minister will shortly be announcing a forthcoming pesticide disposal scheme (he made it clear it was not an amnesty) – no further details available.

3. The committee reviewing wildlife crime penalties (led by Prof Poustie) will report back early in the New Year, and not in December as originally planned.

4. The Minister recognises the “wall of silence” that so often prevents the reporting of wildlife crime. Good.

5. Two weeks ago, Police Scotland claimed that the number of reported wildlife crimes was more than just the tip of the iceberg. The Minister disagrees with that and cited the large areas of suitable and yet unoccupied raptor habitat as evidence of widespread unreported wildlife crime. However, he suggested that more research was necessary to understand why raptors may be missing from those areas. Eh? What about the twenty years of high quality research that has shown time and time again the link between driven grouse moor management and raptor persecution?

6. The Minister recognises that the (police) response to every wildlife crime incident isn’t perfect. However, he believes that everyone in the law enforcement community takes wildlife crime seriously. He said that with a straight face.

7. On the new General Licence restrictions, the Minister explained that he was taking a ‘targeted approach’ to try and avoid penalising those who are not involved in wildlife crime. He accepts that the restriction measure could easily be by-passed by someone simply applying for an individual licence, although he maintains that SNH may not issue one – each case will be judged on its merit. He has more faith in SNH than we do but time will tell.

He also said that he expects GL restriction cases to be listed publicly on SNH’s website “on a live basis” because he wants the restriction to be used as a ‘reputational driver’. Good.

He made an interesting statement about who is probably responsible for poisoning birds:

“In most cases in which we find a dead poisoned bird on a landholding, we can be reasonably confident that the poisoning took place on that landholding and that the bird died on the landholding as a result of that poisoning“.

That’s very encouraging to hear.

8. On the idiotic Police Scotland press release about the Ross-shire Massacre, the Minister said “unfortunately” he didn’t have any input into the wording of the statement and he urged the Committee not to read too much into the statement, but instead to focus on the fact that 16 of the 22 dead birds are confirmed to have been poisoned and that a criminal investigation was continuing. You can read between the lines – he didn’t think much of the police statement.

9. On the SSPCA consultation, the Minister said he hadn’t yet made up his mind about whether to increase their investigatory powers and he was waiting for an analysis of the consultation responses before he decided. He expected to receive the analysis “early next year at the latest“.

10. When asked whether he was considering further measures to tackle wildlife crime, the Minister said he didn’t have a definitive timescale but wanted to give the current measures time to take effect. However, he did say that he had already commissioned a review of game-shoot licensing in other countries, in preparation for consideration of further measures. He wants to know what options are available to him should he decide to take a harder line. The review will be undertaken by Prof Poustie as soon as the wildlife crime penalties review has been completed in the New Year. Excellent.

11. The Minister said he would try to incorporate further data in the next wildlife crime annual report, including reports of illegal traps (but with no apparent victim) and poisoned baits (with no apparent victim). Good.

12. Two weeks ago, COPFS claimed that vicarious liability was already proving to be an effective deterrent against raptor crime (based on what the landowners had been saying). The Minister disagreed, citing on-going wildlife crime as a clear indication that not everyone is deterred by the threat of vicarious liability. He thinks that may change if/when there is a successful VL conviction. Good.

All in all, we think the Minister did pretty well. He may be a bit too light-handed and cautious for many of us, but it’s clear that he has taken a personal interest in addressing wildlife crime, he’s incredibly well-informed, he’s not fooled by the cries of denial from the wildlife killers, and his measures are heading in the right direction, albeit slowly. He thinks the GL restrictions will be the most important step in the process but we disagree. His defining moment will come when he makes the decision on whether to increase the SSPCA’s powers. That decision, and that decision alone, will tell us all we need to know about how seriously committed this Government is to tackling wildlife crime.

Details, details

The following letter appeared in the Press & Journal today:

Wind turbines affecting wildlife – Sir – I congratulate Lyndsey Ward for her excellent letter on windfarms and wildlife. There is absolutely no doubt that the raptors found dead or seriously injured at wind turbines are only the tip of the iceberg. For political reasons, the true figures will never be released. While I fully support Lyndsey’s call for an independent study into the decline of all vulnerable species in areas where there are windfarm developments, I would suggest the study should go further to include the impact protected predators have on species that are in serious decline. The RSPB and Scottish Government would do well to remember and pay heed to the wise words of King George VI: “the wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please. We have it in trust. We must account for it to those who come after”. Peter Fraser, Catanellan, Crathie.

Fascinating, isn’t it, how a discussion about the potential impact of wind farms on raptors is suddenly turned into a dig at the RSPB and an unrelated discussion on ‘the impact protected predators have on species that are in serious decline’?

Perhaps not so surprising when you realise that the author, Peter Fraser, just happens to share the same name and address as the Vice Chair of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. The same Peter Fraser who recently retired after 43 years as a gamekeeper and stalker on Invercauld Estate and whose views on who is responsible for illegal raptor persecution are not supported by actual evidence.

In light of Peter Fraser’s background, it’s interesting to re-read the letter and see how highly it scores on the brilliantly-devised Lagopus’s Delusion Index.

SGA Our team

 

Ross-shire Massacre: MSP calls for review of police investigation

As the Ross-shire Massacre fiasco rolls into its eighth month, one MSP is making a stand.

Dave Thompson MSP (SNP: Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) has called on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to undertake a review in to the police handling of this investigation. Well done, that man!

The police investigation into one of the most high profile mass raptor poisoning crimes in decades has blundered along for far too long and is fully deserving of public scrutiny, as is the accompanying police media strategy. Rather than providing clear and timely information, their strategy has been to release a series of untimely, misleading and willfully ambiguous statements that have done anything but inform. Indeed, these statements have simply led to more and more outlandish speculation and a growing sense of frustration and anger. Given how keen Police Scotland are on “public accountability” (e.g. see here), they’ll no doubt welcome a review of their handling of this case.

Dave Thompson MSP is a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, who recently heard evidence from two senior Police Scotland representatives about the Ross-shire Massacre (see here). It seems he was as unimpressed with their answers as we were.

He said: “It would be useful if a full review of the investigation process was carried out. It would go a long way to allaying any fears the general public may have but also, in the interests of transparency, such a review would take away any lingering confusion about how these great birds of prey met their demise.

“This is why I have written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to request that a review of the investigation process takes place and why I will be making sure the Lord Advocate is copied into any correspondence on the matter“.

Dave Thompson MSP formally opening the Tollie Red Kite feeding station in 2012, assisted by Alex Matheson (Brahan Estate) and George Campbell (RSPB Regional Director). [RSPB Scotland photo]

Dave Thompson MSP

 

They forgot the birds

The following images were photographed on a Scottish estate yesterday by one of our blog readers. They said:

“We found a huge dump of badly decomposing pheasants and partridge plus many recently killed birds. The hillside is thick with them and the smell is really bad. There must be several hundred dumped birds“.

 Interestingly, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in November 2005 headed ‘Game birds for eating not dumping’, Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance said this:

“Every bird shot in Britain goes into the food chain, whether into participants’ freezers, or through game dealers into an increasing number of supermarkets, butchers, pubs and restaurants“.

Another embarrassing lie from the ‘custodians of the countryside’ exposed.

Cue influx of buzzards, kites and other predators coming to feast on these rotting carcasses and then subsequent complaints by the game-shooting industry that predators are at “plague proportions”.

Dumped game birds 3

 

Wildlife crime penalties: have your say

There has long been dissatisfaction with the penalties handed out to those convicted of wildlife crime. Yesterday’s sentencing of convicted mass raptor poisoner Allen Lambert of Stody Estate merely served to highlight the issue, again. But what we perceive to be unacceptably lenient penalties is certainly nothing new, and especially those sentences given to people (usually gamekeepers) associated with the game-shooting industry.

There’s a huge lack of public confidence in the way the judiciary deals with these criminals, with many people often talking about corruption, vested interests, biased judges/sheriffs etc. We’ve all come to expect unduly lenient measures – you only have to look at the comments on social media even before Lambert’s sentence was announced – people were predicting a metaphorical ‘slap on the wrist’, and in essence, that’s indeed what he got, even though the judge had stated that Lambert’s crimes “had crossed the custody threshold“.

Quite often (although apparently not in Lambert’s case), the accused’s employer (typically a wealthy landowner) will even fork out for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to put forward the accused’s defence. A QC is considered to be an exceptional lawyer of outstanding ability – it’s hardly a level playing field to pit a QC against an ‘average’ public prosecutor, leading to even more public concern about the perceived ‘fairness’ of these trials and any subsequent punishment.

Sentencing for wildlife crimes has been hit or miss in both Scotland and England. For most wildlife crime offences (although not all), the maximum sentence available for each offence is a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence. So for example, if someone had been convicted of poisoning two buzzards, they could potentially be hit with a £10,000 fine and a 12 month custodial sentence. As far as we’re aware, the maximum sentence has never been given. Instead, a large dollop of judicial discretion has been applied, resulting in weak and inconsistent penalties and a growing level of frustration amongst the general public who wish to see justice being done.

For example, in 2011, a gamekeeper in South Lanarkshire was convicted of poisoning four buzzards with the banned pesticide Alphachloralose. His sentence? An admonishment (basically a telling off). The maximum penalty available to the Sheriff was a £20,000 fine and/or a two-year custodial sentence. What was even more astonishing about this case was that the gamekeeper had been convicted of another wildlife crime three years earlier (illegal use of a crow cage trap in which he’d caught a buzzard), on the same land, for which he’d received a £300 fine. So the poisoning of four buzzards with a banned pesticide was his second conviction and yet he was given the most lenient penalty available.

A few months later, and just down the road in South Lanarkshire, a second gamekeeper was convicted of possessing the banned pesticide Carbofuran, which had been found in his vehicle. No charges were brought for the discovery of a dead buzzard and a pheasant bait (both tested positive for Carbofuran) found on land where this gamekeeper worked. His sentence? A £635 fine for possession (maximum sentence available was a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence).

Things may be about to change in Scotland. Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has, to his credit, instructed a review of wildlife crime penalties. The group’s remit is:

“To examine and report on how wildlife crime in Scotland is dealt with by the criminal courts, with particular reference to the range of penalties available and whether these are sufficient for the purposes of deterrence and whether they are commensurate with the damage to ecosystems that may be caused by wildlife crime”.

Now, while we don’t for one minute think that a potential increase in penalties will be the great panacea to stopping wildlife crime (for that to happen there also needs to be a significant change in investigation and enforcement procedures…..it’s pointless having a severe penalty in place if the criminal knows the chances of being caught are virtually nil…but more on that in due course), it is nevertheless an encouraging step, assuming of course that the review committee recommends an increase in penalties. They may not – see here for our previous comments on the membership of this review committee, which inexplicably includes the owner of a game-shooting estate.

This is where you come in. There is an opportunity for you to share your views with the review committee by answering a simple questionnaire that includes some carefully-thought out questions. The deadline for responding is two weeks today (21st November 2014) and the questionnaire can be filled in on-line and emailed to the committee. Please click here to download.

This is an excellent opportunity to have your say and perhaps have some influence on future wildlife crime sentencing options. Although the review is only applicable to sentencing options in Scotland, you do not have to live in Scotland to participate – it’s open to anyone from anywhere. And who knows, if improvements are made in the Scottish system then it provides more leverage for calls to do a similar review of wildlife crime penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The review committee is due to report its findings (and recommendations) early in the New Year.

Stody Estate mass poisoner gets…..10 week suspended sentence

Gamekeeper Allen Lambert, convicted of mass raptor poisoning at Stody Estate, Norfolk, has been given a 10 week suspended sentence for poisoning 11 raptors (suspended for one year), a six week suspended sentence for possession of firearms and dead buzzards (suspended for one year) and has been ordered to pay £930 prosecution costs and an £80 victim surcharge.

This sentence will infuriate many. Lambert’s crimes contributed to one of the worst incidents of mass raptor poisoning in the UK. Although it’s not the worst incident, it’s right up there near the top of the list and is certainly the worst mass poisoning of raptors uncovered in England.

District Judge Peter Veits said Lambert’s crimes ‘had crossed the custody threshold’ but that his sentence would be suspended. Why? Sentencing is supposed to serve two purposes. It’s supposed to be a deterrent, not only to the convicted criminal, but also to others who may be contemplating committing the same crime. It’s also supposed to provide a punishment to the perpetrator for having acted criminally.

Does a suspended jail sentence meet any of these aims? No, it certainly does not.

What a wasted opportunity for the judiciary to send out a clear message to those who continue to commit abhorrent wildlife crimes. It’s so rare to actually get a conviction for poisoning; usually it’s the much lesser charge of ‘possession’ of banned poisons [in Scotland] or ‘storage’ of illegal poisons [in England] but here’s a gamekeeper who has been found guilty of actually poisoning 11 protected raptors. Sure, the judge’s sentencing options are constrained within statutory boundaries but the sentence in this case is nowhere near as strong as it could have been. Some of Lambert’s crimes are offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Under this legislation, the maximum sentence, calculated for EACH offence is a £5,000 fine and a six month custodial sentence. That’s just for poisoning 11 birds – in Lambert’s case there are numerous other offences to consider, including firearms offences which usually carry a custodial sentence.

A suspended custodial sentence and a less than £1000 ‘fine’ (prosecution costs) for what Lambert did is absurdly lenient. According to the RSPB, since 2001, four gamekeepers have received suspended custodial sentences for persecution offences. During the same period, 12 egg collectors have actually been jailed. The inconsistency in wildlife crime sentencing is remarkable.

In Scotland there is currently a wildlife crime penalty review underway, at the behest of Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. There is an opportunity for you to participate, by filling in a questionnaire which seeks views on whether penalties for wildlife crime offences in Scotland are sufficient deterrent. The closing date is 21 November. Full details here.

So, Lambert’s pretty much got off scot free, but what of his (now former) employers, the Stody Estate? According to the BBC, ‘there is no evidence the estate owner, Charles MacNicol, knew about the poisonings. He wouldn’t tell BBC News whether he knew, or whether he condemned the killings’. Lambert was not sacked by Stody Estate, but instead was allowed to take early retirement, according to ITV news.

What we do know is the Stody Estate has received millions in agricultural subsidies over the years (see here), and as a result of blog readers’ efforts, the Rural Payments Agency is understood to be investigating to see whether financial penalties can be applied for cross-compliance offences (see here).

UPDATE 8/11/14: Here are the judge’s comments on Lambert’s sentencing:  DJ Peter Veits sentencing 6 Nov 2014

Media coverage of Lambert’s sentencing

RSPB press release here

BBC news here

BBC news video here

RSPB Investigations blog here

Daily Mail here

ITV news here

Norfolk Eastern Daily Press here

Telegraph here

Guardian here

Independent here

Norfolk Constabulary press statement here

Lambert 9 bz

Sentencing due for Stody Estate mass poisoner

Allen Lambert, the mass poisoning gamekeeper from Stody Estate, Norfolk, will be sentenced today following his convictions last month.

What sort of sentence does a convicted mass poisoner deserve? He was found guilty of poisoning 10 buzzards and 1 sparrowhawk. He was found guilty of the illegal storage and use of some of the most dangerous pesticides in the world. He was found guilty of having equipment capable of being used to prepare poisoned baits. He was found guilty of having nine dead buzzards in his possession.

Let’s hope the magistrate views this case with the seriousness it deserves.

Previous blogs on this case here, here, here.

GWCT concerned about missing gamekeepers

The Gamekeeper Welfare Conservation Trust (GWCT) aired concerns today about the fate of satellite-tagged gamekeepers that have mysteriously vanished in the last few months…..

Reservoir Cats at their satirical best – read the full story here

reservoir-cats